legality/newspaper photos question

[Pantsy]

i work for out small town newspaper. i'm not considered a 'regular' employee. i get paid under the table for my photography work. i get twenty dollors a week for gas/milage, plus five dollors per assignment, unless its one that takes more than a half hour, then its ten bucks an hour.

so, this is where the problem comes in. i took around seven rolls of film this past weekend for a big job for work. (our towns mardi gras) and was told that we can sell the pictures on disk for five bucks a piece. but it turns out, i get none of that. it all goes to 'the paper'.

i was under the impression that only the pictures they publish are theirs. but i think i'm wrong. they pay for the film and development.

so, i guess what i'm asking is if i really am screwed on this matter.

 

[voodoocat]

If they are paying you under the table I doubt they will have any legal claim to those photos.

 

[wwjoeld]

if you are freelancing for them, then they are your photos... they have no right to your photos, that fee to publish them, is so that they can publish it once, if they want to publish it again, they have to pay you again.

 

[metroshane]

Well, you do have your rights as far as the pics go...however you are getting screwed on your arrangement. $20 a week? Pffft! :x

You do realize that they are a commercial interprise that makes money off your pics, right. Most papers around here pay about $50 a pic.

 

[Pantsy]

thanks voodoo and joe. thats what i thought as well, but they say all my pictures are the property of the paper.

and shane, no i didnt realize that. you think it makes a difference because its such a small paper? what should i be doing differently?

 

[metroshane]

They can say they own the pics all they want...but it just isn't the case.

As far as what to do now...I'm not sure of your situation...so I can't really say. I definitely think we are worth more than that...but the market will bear so much. Are there lots of photogs around that will do the work for that price, etc.

 

[Pantsy]

thanks shane.

i reckon i'll just have to argue my case to them today.

i think i need a new line of work.

 

[jack]

uke-rig:

 

[jack]

uke-rig:

 

[metroshane]

The contract has to stipulate work for hire, Jack. Otherwise every wedding photog would lose their copyright b/c they are being paid.

No contracty..no worky for hirey.

 

[jack]

uke-rig:

 

[Dew]

before doing anything of the sort, one should consider a contract ... if they hired u as an agent .. it can look like the photos belong to the paper ... however, this understanding should have gotten out in the beginning

i would not gripe about this one .. u could loose your job with them ... minus the pay .. its good for references and experience .. i wouldnt cause an uproar

from here on out, i would get a contract together

all the photos that i've done paid or otherwise, the copyright belongs to me and my clients sign a release stating so

 

[jack]

uke-rig:

 

[metroshane]

OH brother, jack. Is this really necessary.

Here's a few things for you to chew on.

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/work_for_hire.htm

"if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire"

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Not just wedding photogs, jack...anyone who takes a pic owns the copyright unless it's expressly written. In fact, if Vogue magazine hires me to take pics of Hiedi Klum...they pay me for my time. I own the copyrights and sell them usage. the magazine will purchase usage but very rarely will pay for the copyright outright. However the contract will usually state that the photographer will not re publish the same photo for a certain amount of time.

Now, please children. Do your own legwork from now on. The copyright office is a nice place to start.
www.copyright.gov

 

[jack]

uke-rig: